Agenda item
Schedule
To consider the accompanying Schedule of Planning Applications and proposals, marked Appendix “A”.
Decision:
|
Parish and Reference |
Address |
Recommendation |
Item & page numbers |
|
Ashchurch Rural |
|
|
|
|
|
17/00072/FUL |
Land Parcels 7946 & 9067 Fiddington Tewkesbury |
Refuse |
1 |
854 |
|
Brockworth |
|
|
|
|
|
16/01313/FUL |
8 Ermin Street Brockworth GL3 4HJ |
Permit |
11 |
918 |
|
Churchdown |
|
|
|
|
|
16/01354/FUL |
3 Barrow Hill Churchdown |
Permit |
12 |
921 |
|
Gretton |
|
|
|
|
|
17/00043/FUL |
Myrtle Cottage Gretton Road Gretton |
Refuse |
2 |
869 |
|
Gretton |
|
|
|
|
|
17/00100/FUL |
5 Apple Orchard Close Gretton |
Permit |
5 |
891 |
|
Longford |
|
|
|
|
|
16/00853/FUL |
Land to East of Tewkesbury Road & North of Longford Lane Longford |
Delegated Permit |
16 |
955 |
|
Minsterworth |
|
|
|
|
|
16/00822/OUT |
Part Parcel 1228 Main Road Minsterworth |
Permit |
9 |
906 |
|
Norton |
|
|
|
|
|
16/00191/FUL |
Walnut Farm Tewkesbury Road Norton |
Delegated Permit |
15 |
945 |
|
Norton |
|
|
|
|
|
16/01172/FUL |
Part Parcel 3100 Wainlode Lane Norton |
Delegated Permit |
17 |
790 |
|
Southam |
|
|
|
|
|
17/00017/FUL |
Noverton Farm Noverton Lane Prestbury |
Deferred |
13 |
924 |
|
Stanway |
|
|
|
|
|
15/01359/FUL |
Harrington House Toddington Cheltenham |
Permit |
3 |
877 |
|
Parish and Reference |
Address |
Recommendation |
Item & page numbers |
|
Stanway |
|
|
|
|
|
16/01422/FUL |
Ashgrove Toddington Cheltenham |
Permit |
4 |
885 |
|
Staverton |
|
|
|
|
|
17/00105/FUL |
Willowdene Gloucester Road Staverton |
Refuse |
8 |
900 |
|
Tewkesbury |
|
|
|
|
|
17/00186/FUL |
47 Stanton Road Mitton Tewkesbury |
Permit |
7 |
897 |
|
Twigworth |
|
|
|
|
|
15/00898/OUT |
Part Parcel 2691 Tewkesbury Road Twigworth |
Delegated Permit |
14 |
930 |
|
Twigworth |
|
|
|
|
|
16/01209/OUT |
Vine House Tewkesbury Road Twigworth |
Permit |
10 |
912 |
|
Winchcombe |
|
|
|
|
|
17/00124/FUL |
46 Crispin Road Winchcombe |
Permit |
6 |
894 |
Minutes:
87.1 The Development Manager submitted a Schedule comprising planning applications and proposals with recommendations thereon. Copies of this had been circulated to Members as Appendix A to the Agenda for the meeting. The objections to, support for, and observations upon the various applications as referred to in Appendix 1 attached to these Minutes were presented to the Committee and duly taken into consideration by Members prior to decisions being made on those applications.
17/00072/FUL – Land Parcels 7946 & 9067, Fiddington, Tewkesbury
87.2 This application was for a biomass-based anaerobic digestion facility including: primary digester with feed processing hoppers; secondary digester; final storage tanks; biomethane upgrading unit; grid entry unit (GEU); propane tanks (LPG); preliminary pit; condensation pits; pump container; biogas boiler; standby flare stack; weighbridge; agricultural feedstock storage (silage clamps); digestate separator; office with associated foul drainage pit; landscape works including bunding and reprofiling using excavated material and planting; rainwater retention ponds, drainage system and newt ponds; underground gas pipe to connect to gas mains with associated grid entry unit; and hard surfacing including alterations to existing vehicular access, internal roads and parking.
87.3 The Chair invited Tony Davies, speaking on behalf of ‘Save Our Lanes’, to address the Committee. Mr Davies expressed the opinion that this was yet another attempt by the applicant to build an industrial estate within open countryside under a green umbrella to take advantage of central government subsidies at the expense of the local community. The applicant had previously stated that the proposal could not be smaller as this would make it unviable and yet here was an application with a proposal for a smaller plant. Notwithstanding the reduction in size, the plant would still harm the local landscape with an activity that was more industrial than agricultural which was unprecedented within the intimate field pattern around Fiddington. The applicant wanted to double the volume of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) on the quiet lanes and increase them more than threefold during peak times; this would obviously affect the enjoyment and safety of all users of the local highway network, including the many livery stables along the lane. Substantial mitigation would be necessary to accommodate the HGVs, yet there would still be pinch-points where vehicles would not be able to pass one another, for example, at the Swilgate Bridge and the Odessa where it would be more than “a little bit tight” as shown in the tracking theory submitted – in practice it would probably be impossible. Despite the previous refusal, no alternative site had been thoroughly investigated. The refusal reasons for the previous application were well documented and yet the new plant would be located in the same place, would use the same road network and would generate the same noise, odour and light pollution which would have the same harmful impact on the area and on local residents; it should therefore be refused for the same reasons.
87.4 Exercising the Chair’s discretion as regards Members, the Chair invited Councillor Vernon Smith to address the Committee. Councillor Smith indicated that Fiddington was a small, rural community and, even with the reduction in size, the proposal was still very much industrial as opposed to agricultural. The facility would operate seven days per week, for 52 weeks of the year, and would have a detrimental impact on the landscape with a significant increase in HGVs using the lanes which should not be underestimated. He pointed out that Policy TPT1 of the Local Plan sought to ensure that highway access could be provided to an appropriate standard which would not adversely affect the safety or satisfactory operation of the highway network, not cause an unacceptable loss of amenity to users of adjacent land. In places it would be virtually impossible for two HGVs to pass one another leaving absolutely no room for error. There would also be impacts further afield as the route for feedstock deliveries would mean that the High Street in Tewkesbury would become congested with tractors and trailers which was totally unacceptable. Any benefits of the proposal would be outweighed by the significant impact on the local environment. Very little had changed since the original application had been refused and he urged Members to refuse this application once again.
87.5 The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to refuse the application and he sought a motion from the floor. It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused in accordance with the Officer recommendation. Whilst he understood the concerns raised by local residents in terms of the local road network, a Member questioned whether Officers were generally opposed to anaerobic digestion plants or whether they might be considered more favourably in other locations within the Borough. The Planning Officer explained that each case was assessed on its own merits and it was important that sites had the necessary infrastructure in place to support such developments. Whilst this proposal had been reduced in size since the previous refusal, it was still considered to be inappropriate in this particular location. It was recognised that there could be some benefits from localised anaerobic digestion and a smaller scheme in an alternate location may be considered differently. Whilst an anaerobic digestion plant could not be ruled out - in Fiddington or the surrounding areas - in this instance, the development was considered to be an industrial scale and Officers did not feel that was acceptable for this site. Upon being put to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That the application be REFUSED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.
17/00043/FUL – Myrtle Cottage, Gretton Road, Gretton
87.6 This application was for the erection of one detached dwelling and detached triple garage to the rear of existing dwelling at Myrtle Cottage, including demolition of existing detached garage and provision of associated vehicular access road, parking and landscaping. The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 7 April 2017.
87.7
The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this
item. The Officer recommendation was to
refuse the application and he sought a motion from the
floor. It was proposed and seconded
that the application be refused in accordance with the Officer
recommendation. The proposer of the
motion pointed out that there were some typographical errors in the
Officer report which affected its meaning. He drew attention to the response from Severn
Trent Water, set out at Page No. 869 of the Schedule, attached at
Appendix A to the Agenda, which should read: “Severn Trent
Water has been consulted but has not provided
comments within the 21 statutory consultation
period…”, and to the balancing exercise and summary at
Page No. 875, Paragraph 5.2, which should read: “It is
not considered that the proposed development
would not appropriately reflect the existing morphology of the
settlement, and would appear incongruous in the context of this
linear form of development, and as an encroachment into the open
countryside”. The Planning
Officer apologised for these errors.
87.8 A Member felt that this was another example of a location where development would never be deemed acceptable. He indicated that, as part of the Borough Plan and Joint Core Strategy negotiations, approximately 80% of the borough had been identified as unsuitable for development of any sort; whilst there may be appropriate reasons to refuse this particular application, he wanted to highlight that villages and smaller areas within the borough were at risk of stagnation.
87.9 Upon being taken to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That the application be REFUSED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.
15/01359/FUL – Harrington House, Toddington
87.10 This application was for the erection of two dwellings with landscaping, access and associated works.
87.11 The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item. The Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he invited a motion from the floor. It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being put to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.
16/01422/FUL – Ashgrove, Toddington
87.12 This application was for residential development on domestic garden land.
87.13 The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item. The Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he invited a motion from the floor. It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being taken to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.
17/00100/FUL – 5 Apple Orchard Close, Gretton
87.14 This application was for an extension to existing conservatory to rear elevation. The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 7 April 2017.
87.15 The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item. The Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he invited a motion from the floor. It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation. The proposer of the motion indicated that there was a large pipe in the garden of the site which had been seen on the site visit. Gretton had been known to suffer from surface water flooding during times of considerable rainfall and the pipe played an important part in the disposal of water running off the hill. The neighbour was very concerned that the proposal may impact on ground conditions, which could be liable to slippage and, whilst he recognised that Officers proposed to include a note on the decision notice advising the applicant to contact Building Control to ensure that the ground was secure, he questioned whether this could be strengthened by making it a condition of the planning permission. The Planning Officer clarified that this was not a planning issue and it was not possible to impose conditions which were covered by a different legislative procedure. If there was an issue with land subsidence, this would become a civil matter and would need to be resolved through the courts. Upon being taken to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.
17/00124/FUL – 46 Crispin Road, Winchcombe
87.16 This application was for a single storey front extension. The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 7 April 2017.
87.17 The Chair invited Councillor Ron Harrison, representing Winchcombe Town Council, to address the Committee. Councillor Harrison advised that the Town Council’s main concern was the impact of the proposal on the streetscene. Crispin Road was a very pleasant area of single storey housing of similar, but not identical, design and presented an overall homogenous appearance. There was a pronounced curve in the street at this point, with No. 46 being on the inside, meaning that the relatively large extension to the front of the property would appear to protrude considerably beyond the adjoining properties and would be an incongruous and visually intrusive feature in the streetscene. In that respect it would amount to overdevelopment of the site. The proposed extension to provide a fourth bedroom was likely to have an adverse impact on the enjoyment of the occupation of the neighbouring property immediately to the south. It would project well beyond the front of this bungalow, which itself aligned with the frontage of No. 46. It was likely, therefore, to have an overbearing impact on the adjoining bungalow. In addition, the proposed side window to the new extension would impair the privacy enjoyed by the neighbour. He hoped that these points would be fully taken into account by the Committee in reaching its decision.
87.18 The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor. It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation. The proposer of the motion felt that the extension was very similar to others in the area. The original houses were very small and he recognised that people often wanted to extend rather than move to larger properties and he was very happy to support the Officer recommendation. Upon being taken to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.
17/00186/FUL – 47 Stanton Road, Mitton
87.19 This application was for two storey side and single storey rear extensions.
87.20 The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item. The Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor. It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being taken to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.
17/00105/FUL – Willowdene, Gloucester Road, Staverton
87.21 This application was for construction of a dwelling to replace existing dwelling and outbuildings and associated works.
87.22 The Chair invited the applicant’s agent, Becky Brown, to address the Committee. She explained that this was an application for a replacement dwelling on a site within the Green Belt. In terms of planning policy, the construction of replacement buildings was considered acceptable as long as, firstly, the building was the same use and, secondly, it was not materially larger than the one it would replace. The first criterion was clearly satisfied as the existing buildings on the site – a bungalow and its outbuildings – were in residential use and the proposed building was also for residential use. The second criterion was a matter of interpretation of policy. Unhelpfully, the National Planning Policy Framework did not provide a definition of the words ‘materially larger’ and therefore it came down to a matter of judgement for the decision taker. As set out in the Officer report, planning permission had already been granted for a replacement single storey dwelling, as well as an alternative scheme which comprised a dormer bungalow. Both of these schemes were extant and, therefore, either could be implemented. As such, they represented a significant fallback position which was an important material consideration in the determination of the current application. Members would recall an application that was refused just before Christmas for a two storey replacement dwelling on the site. Even though that dwelling had a smaller footprint, and the useable floorspace was less than either of the approved schemes, the height was felt to be an issue. This had been taken on board in the current application; by lowering the eaves height as much as possible, the proposed ridge height was 0.5m lower than the refused scheme and only 30cm higher than the approved scheme. The applicant would also be replacing the large extent of hardstanding at the rear of the existing bungalow with a lawned garden, and the boundary wall and railings at the front of the property were to be replaced with something more appropriate. It was therefore considered that the impact of the proposal on the Green Belt would not be any worse than the schemes which already had planning permission. Officers had referred to the negative impact on the rural character of the locality, however, in her view that would not be the case, bearing in mind the context of the site in terms of the industrial/business park opposite, its proximity to the M5 to the west and the other two storey dwellings located on either side of the road. It should also be noted that the site was not located within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or Special Landscape Area. The site had a rather unfortunate past history which the applicant was keen to move on from and was hoping to build a home for himself and his family. She therefore asked Members to permit the application and grant permission for this replacement dwelling.
87.23 The Planning Officer drew attention to the Additional Representation Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, which included plans of the existing dwelling and the permitted replacement, along with the previously refused application. The existing dwelling was a very small, low-key bungalow and, whilst a larger replacement dwelling had already been granted planning permission, that had been on the basis that it would incorporate the existing outbuildings so the volume of the replacement dwelling would be commensurate with the existing bungalow and outbuildings. The application which had been refused by the Committee at the end of 2016 was quite clearly significantly and materially larger than the one it was replacing. In terms of the current application, the only thing which had changed was the ridge height; the floorspace remained the same as in the previously refused application. The proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and very special circumstances must be put forward to justify permission which Officers did not feel had been demonstrated in this instance. Furthermore, in the Officers’ opinion, the lower ridge height had resulted in a poorer design overall and this had been included as a further reason for refusal.
87.24 The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to refuse the application and he sought a motion from the floor. It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused in accordance with the Officer recommendation. A Member indicated that he had a contrary view as he regularly drove past the site and felt that a replacement dwelling would be more attractive than the existing buildings. The proposal would be in keeping with the area, as opposed to the existing bungalow which was overshadowed by the industrial park – a massive building in the Green Belt. The Committee was happy to permit buildings of the size proposed in other parts of the borough. As this was in the Green Belt he was of the opinion that it should be recommended for permission subject to agreement by the Secretary of State, although he understood that this did not meet the criteria for such a referral. If the proposal was refused solely on the basis of its Green Belt location, he raised concern that it may contravene Article 14 of the Human Rights Act in refusing an application in the Green Belt which would be accepted elsewhere. The seconder of the proposal indicated that the Member was quite right that you could not discriminate on property; however, on the basis of its size and scale, this application was harmful as a matter of fact and was contrary to planning policy. If a replacement dwelling was required, the applicant had planning permission in place which could be taken advantage of. The Planning Officer pointed out that the applicant had a right of appeal to the Secretary of State and all of the arguments which had been made in favour of the application could be played out at appeal.
87.25 A Member queried whether there was industrial use on the site as he recalled from a previous site visit that the outbuildings were being used for various activities. The Planning Officer indicated that he did not have a definitive answer; however, there was no authorised business activity on the site. He reiterated that the volume of the existing outbuildings and the bungalow had been combined which had resulted in planning permission being granted for a larger replacement dwelling and they would therefore ultimately be replaced if that permission was utilised. He clarified that unauthorised business use could not be used as a way to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
87.26 Upon being put to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That the application be REFUSED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.
16/00822/OUT – Part Parcel 1228, Main Road, Minsterworth
87.27 This was an outline application for residential development of up to six dwellings with associated vehicular access.
87.28 The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this application. The Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor. It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation. The proposer of the motion expressed the view that Minsterworth needed more growth. Whilst he noted County Highways had raised no objection to the proposal, there had been some concern locally regarding traffic and he asked that the best visibility splays be made available. Upon being taken to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.
16/01209/OUT – Vine House, Tewkesbury Road, Twigworth
87.29 This was an outline application for the erection of five dwellings.
87.30 The Planning Officer advised that the application related to a piece of land to the north of Vine House which fronted onto the A38 in Twigworth. Outline planning permission for the erection of five detached dwellings had been granted in October 2016, subject to a legal agreement in respect of a contribution towards affordable housing. The current application was for five dwellings, with all matters reserved, and was identical to the previous approval in all respects other than the applicant was no longer proposing to make an off-site contribution towards affordable housing. Members were informed that there had been a change in government policy which meant that affordable housing contributions should not be sought from developments of 10 units or less, which had a maximum combined gross floorspace of no more than 1,000sqm. The indicative layout suggested that the gross floorspace for the proposed application would be approximately 850sqm and the applicant had confirmed that the development would fall below 1,000sqm when the reserved matters were submitted. The Planning Officer confirmed that the maximum amount of floorspace could be controlled by condition. The Parish Council had raised concern regarding the layout and design of the proposal, however, this was identical to that which had been approved in 2016 so the only matter for consideration was the change in circumstances regarding affordable housing. Given the change in planning policy guidance, it was considered unreasonable to require a contribution to be paid and it was therefore recommended that outline planning permission be granted.
87.31 The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor. It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation. In response to a Member query as to whether the affordable housing contribution had been the main driver for granting planning permission for the outline application in October 2016, the Planning Officer clarified that the 2016 application had been for market dwellings and planning policy at that time had required an offsite contribution for affordable housing. The change in circumstances meant that it was no longer reasonable to require that contribution. Upon being taken to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.
16/01313/FUL – 8 Ermin Street, Brockworth
87.32 This application was to remove and vary conditions relating to application 14/00052/FUL – remove Condition 1 to allow continued use of site for prayer and bible study and reading of Holy Scriptures; and variation of Condition 2 to allow up to 40 persons to attend the site at any one time.
87.33 The Chair invited Mr Crockett, speaking on behalf of the neighbours, to address the Committee. Mr Crockett noted that the Officer report stated there had been no objections from the Highways Officer, however, the actual response stated that, as County Highways had previously recommended refusal on the original application, it had no comment to make. The Planning Officer had then sent further information and asked for an updated response to which County Highways had responded that it was aware of the history of the site and its no comment response remained unchanged. In terms of the original response from Environmental Health, this had concluded with the statement that the conditions had been put in place to protect the local amenity and there was no other supporting information in the application which would encourage the Environmental Health Officer to recommend permission. The Planning Officer had replied that there had been no complaints regarding 40 attendees; this had resulted in an amended response based on inaccurate information. Using information from the Carlton Gospel Hall Trust, previously supplied to the Planning Officer, to achieve 40 persons - including the six regular pedestrians – required 10 cars. At present there was insufficient parking for 10 cars; if there was there would be no need to convert the garden into a parking area which the Trust stated was necessary to facilitate this number of cars. Neighbour observations confirmed that, during the temporary permission, there was a maximum of six cars and, with no extra pedestrians, this ruled out people parking elsewhere and walking. With the Trust’s average figure of 3.4 persons per car, that equated to a maximum of 27. The same attendance figures supplied to the Planning Officer also showed that, of the 83 meetings submitted, 73 exceeded the 17 person maximum that planning conditions allowed at that time. The Trust continued to exceed the current planning condition of a 17 person maximum imposed from 6 October 2016. These temporary permissions were in place to allow monitoring – the only monitoring was to establish whether any complaints had been made, not to check whether planning conditions were being adhered to. He questioned why an increase from 17 to 25 persons was refused on the basis of conflicting with the National Planning Policy Framework and the Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan but an increase to 40 persons did not conflict. He pointed out that disturbance was not restricted to noise; a neighbour had objected that, on dark Sunday mornings, their bedroom was often lit up by car headlights as people arrived and departed. The early evening meetings may pose a highways issue in future as a proposed modification to the light-controlled junction would affect entering and exiting the property due to the new layout. Visual amenity would also be adversely affected as the whole front garden, comprising two lawns and a drive, would be completely replaced for parking. He pointed out that Government Planning Policy Statements and Supplementary Planning Guidance PPS7 stated that “The use of an entire garden area to provide car parking or turning will be resisted”.
87.34 The Chair invited the applicant’s agent, Peter Preston, to address the Committee. He explained that the application before the Committee related to the removal of a condition attached to an earlier planning permission to allow the continued use of the site for prayer, bible studies and reading of the Holy Scriptures, and the variation of a condition attached to that permission limiting the number of persons attending. The building had first been used for this purpose on 1 April 2014. On 5 October 2015, planning permission had been granted for a maximum of 40 persons to attend. Permission for an increased number had been given on a temporary basis only in order to monitor and assess any potential noise and disturbance arising from the use which could affect the amenity of the neighbouring property. He was pleased to be able to say that, during the one year period, no formal complaints had been received by Tewkesbury Borough Council as to the use of the premises for this purpose. This being the case, it could be clearly seen that use by slightly increased numbers had in no way had a detrimental impact upon highway safety or on residential amenity. The Brethren Community had many halls of similar capacity throughout the UK, including another six in Gloucester. The Brethren had been neighbourly and considerate to surrounding residents and to the general public in their use of the building for Christian meetings and had caused no nuisance or highway danger. Car parking had generally been contained on site and rarely had there been any parking of vehicles on the public highway. Indeed, several of the attendees who lived close to the property walked to gatherings. Generally, a maximum of six or seven cars had been parked at the premises for each gathering during the past year. The current use generated considerably less traffic than a three bedroom property used residentially which had the potential for several vehicles to be accessing the site on many occasions, day and night. The application before Members had a positive recommendation from the Planning Officer, it related only to conditions and no planning policies were being contravened. His client had been waiting a long time for a decision, given that the application had been validated in November 2016, and he respectfully requested that the Committee accept the Officer recommendation, based on the evidence of the one year monitoring period.
87.35 The Planning Officer clarified that County Highways had objected to the original 2014 application which had been submitted for a change of use of the property for prayer and bible study and reading of Holy Scriptures, and additional parking provision on the basis of concerns regarding parking and traffic movements. The application had been approved by the Planning Committee contrary to that objection. A number of applications had been submitted since that time and, in the most recent application prior to this, County Highways had raised no objection on highway grounds based on the information provided as part of the justification which had included how the proposal operated and it being specific to this type of use in terms of how people travelled to the facility and the number of cars which it attracted. The Planning Officer confirmed that, when he had received the response stating that County Highways had objected to the original proposal and therefore had no further comment to make, he had gone back and pointed out that, under the previous application County Highways had indicated that it raised no objection. A further response had then been received reiterating the ‘no comment’ response. Based on the previous assessment, where there had been no objection raised by County Highways, and given that this application was based on the same numbers, it had been taken that there were no highway safety objections as there had been no issues arising during the temporary period. In terms of Environmental Health, the Environmental Health Officer had not been fully aware of the planning history and the fact that it was a temporary planning permission; the original comments had been based on an increase from 12 to 40 as the Officer had not recognised the fact that the facility had been operating at a higher number for the past 12 months. There had been no complaints of a statutory nature during that time, and no enforcement complaints, which gave a good indication of the real impact on the ground. It had been operating for the past year in an effective manner without raising any concerns among residents and therefore the impacts were acceptable in environmental health terms.
87.36 A Member drew attention to Condition 2 of the recommendation which set out that the premises/land shall be used for the purposes of bible study and distribution of bible literature, prayer, reading of scripture, counsel to attendees and general discussion with attendees in association with the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church and for no other purpose. He had always been led to believe that planning permission was granted for a building as opposed to individuals and he questioned why this was not the case in this instance. The Planning Officer explained that it was reasonable to include this condition as other D1 uses which would otherwise be granted permission were much more intensive than those associated with the Brethren Church. The Legal Adviser confirmed that, on the whole, use should not be tied to a particular person and, in particular, to bodies or companies where stakeholders could change; however, it was possible to attach a condition in exceptional circumstances and, in this case, the planning permission would be tied to use by the Brethren Church which was enforceable.
87.37 The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor. It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being put to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.
16/01354/FUL – 3 Barrow Hill, Churchdown
87.38 This application was for a side extension over existing garage with single storey extension to the rear with double storey gable over.
87.39 The Chair invited the applicant’s wife, Jodie Evans, to address the Committee. Mrs Evans explained that she had lived at the property with her husband for almost 3.5 years and within that time they had been blessed with two young children. They loved living in the area and had enjoyed meeting new people through walking with the children, attending various baby and toddler groups and visiting local amenities. They had applied for an extension of their property to increase their living space so that their toddlers would have more space to explore downstairs. They also proposed to add a fourth bedroom over the garage; currently their youngest child slept in the smallest room of the house and would outgrow this at some point in the future meaning that they would have to move. They appreciated that comments had been made in response to their proposal regarding the appearance of the front of the property and, subsequently, the overall appearance of the street. Looking from the front of the property, their house was on the far left of the row of semi-detached houses. Their neighbours at No. 6 were at the far right of the row and had extended their property with a first floor extension spanning the full length of their garage. For that reason, they felt that their proposal would bring good symmetry to the row of semi-detached houses. They had pushed back the first floor extension from the front of the existing building and lowered the ridge line which had enabled them to include a dormer above the garage rather than a gable which they felt complemented the current building. These were modifications of the original plans, in response to comments from the Parish Council, members of the public and the Planning Officers. Their eldest child was due to start pre-school in the village in September and hopefully both of their children would continue their education in schools in the village, which had a great reputation. They had moved into the property with the thought that it would be their “forever home” – their next door neighbour had moved in over 40 years ago to raise his family – and they felt that their children were privileged to grow up in such a beautiful location.
87.40 The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor. It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted and, upon being taken to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.
17/00017/FUL – Noverton Farm, Noverton Lane, Prestbury
87.41 This application was for two flood storage areas, creating new ditches and installation of new culverts.
87.42 The Chair invited Oliver Rider, speaking on behalf of the owner of Noverton Farm, to address the Committee. Mr Rider confirmed that he represented the Sinnett family of Noverton Farm who were the landowners but not the applicants. The Sinnett family had been based at Noverton Farm since 1938 and ran livery, riding schools and hay-making enterprises; they strongly opposed this scheme. It was right that Gloucestershire County Council, as Lead Local Flood Authority, explored opportunities to reduce flood risk; however, there were a number of factors that needed to be considered. Firstly, there was a question of need. He noted that Southam Parish Council objected to the proposal and stated that “there is no record of flooding in the area and no evidence of flooding has been provided”, concluding that “there is no need for these works to be carried out”. The application suggested that 213 properties would be protected downstream in Cheltenham, although a flyer recently sent out to locals indicated only 173 would be protected; he felt that there should be a definitive number if the scheme was robust. Whichever was correct, it was clear that this was a relatively small number in the context of the whole catchment area – probably less than 5-10%. He questioned whether £2M of the public purse was warranted for the protection of so few properties and if there was a better solution that would protect more households. For those reasons, he agreed with the Parish Council and suggested that limited weight be given to the alleged benefits. Notwithstanding this, his primary concern was the effect on the Sinnett family’s businesses. The submission stated that any disturbance to the land would only be temporary but, with respect to the Lead Local Flood Authority, they were not equestrians and had no real idea what the effects on those businesses would be. The project took six months to construct and he questioned what would happen to the businesses during that period; if clients were forced to move their horses elsewhere then their custom would be lost. Horses were temperamental and did not react well to changes in surroundings. Some clients had already stated that they would stop using the facilities if planning permission was granted today; an independent equestrian report exploring the actual impacts on these businesses should have been carried out. Furthermore, the land directly to the south was owned by Cheltenham Borough Council; an assessment of publically available land should first have been considered – Gloucestershire County Council said that this was the most suitable land but had provided no evidence to back this up. To make matters worse, Gloucestershire County Council had now confirmed that it had no intention of compulsorily purchasing the land, instead it would force access through Land Drainage Act provisions meaning no certainty of compensation whatsoever. This application did not contain adequate information – if Members did not know the precise extent of the public benefits, whether it could be provided elsewhere and to what degree it would impact on local business, no balanced judgement could be made. The safest decision would be either to refuse permission on the basis of lack of information, or defer the application to seek full assessment. A decision to permit the application today would be unsound in his view and at risk of challenge.
87.43 The Chair invited David Parish, Gloucestershire County Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Management Officer, to address the Committee. He explained that, following the 2007 floods, the government had commissioned Sir Michael Pitt to undertake a review of flood management. A key finding was the need to prepare Surface Water Management Plans (SWMPs) for areas most at risk. In 2011, Gloucestershire County Council had commissioned the Cheltenham SWMP which had identified Whaddon, Lynworth and Oakley as high flood risk areas - in June and July 2007, over 300 properties in these areas were known to have flooded. In terms of the proposal, the scheme had evolved over six years in close consultation with the Environment Agency and Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Borough Councils. The scheme design had been approved and sponsored by the Environment Agency after being subject to a comprehensive checking process. The landowner of Noverton Farm had been consulted at an early stage and this had resulted in moving the proposed position of the attenuation basin on his land to accommodate his preferences at that time. The current flood regulations required Lead Local Flood Authorities to undertake a Flood Risk Assessment using flood maps provided by the Environment Agency which showed that the Priors/Oakley area had the most number of people and properties at significant risk of flooding in the county. The nature of the scheme dictated the selection of the chosen sites i.e. the scheme was designed to prevent flooding in the lower parts of the catchment; it must, therefore, hold water back in the upper part of the same catchment. The location of the existing watercourses, the extent of the catchment, the topography and proximity of existing development combined to dictate the precise position of the scheme – it could not be sited anywhere else if it was to be effective. The scheme had been carefully designed to have minimal impact on current land uses and the County Council would continue to consult the landowner and try to mitigate the impact of the scheme. The planning application had showed two access points, including an access from Noverton Lane; however, the preferred bidder had now agreed to access the entire site from Priors Farm only which should alleviate concerns regarding the access from Noverton Lane. The development would improve the level of flood protection by attenuating the peak flows and then gradually releasing the flow back into the existing surface water network. The new structures would not affect the current land use, including access to properties and footpaths. The size and location of the storage area had been chosen to optimise the reduction in flood risk, balanced with the need to minimise the visual impact of the earth embankments. Gloucestershire County Council had no desire or need to own the land and it was unnecessary to deprive the current owners from having use of the land. The attenuation scheme would have benefits in reducing flood risk for all residents in the Noverton and Wyman’s Brook catchments, in particular it would provide 1 in 100 year protection for 173 properties with a further 34 properties being provided with property level protection. He therefore urged the Committee to support the application.
87.44 The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor. It was proposed that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation, however, this motion was not seconded. It was subsequently proposed and seconded that the application be refused on the basis that it would be harmful to the appearance and setting of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The proposer of the motion indicated that he was also concerned about the impact of the proposal on the landowner’s businesses and questioned whether more suitable sites may be available.
87.45 The Planning Officer reminded Members that the Lead Local Flood Authority was charged by the government with alleviating flooding. There were significant issues, albeit in Cheltenham Borough rather than Tewkesbury Borough, which required urgent flood attenuation works. He clarified that this was a joint application as one of the attenuation ponds would be located within Cheltenham Borough and planning permission had been granted for that part of the scheme. In terms of the potential impact upon the landowner’s businesses, he explained that there were ways to minimise disruption during the construction phase, for example, through a construction method statement. With regard to longer term impacts, although it was not within the planning remit, he was sure there were compensation measures. With regard to the application itself, the Lead Local Flood Authority had submitted a number of different locations as part of the site selection process. Officers understood that the Lead Local Flood Authority had spoken to the landowners, considered all options and put forward the proposal which would have the greatest benefit. The Lead Local Flood Authority was the statutory consultee and, if it had identified a need, this should be accepted. The Landscape Officer had been consulted on the application and had originally raised objection on the basis that insufficient justification and assessment of the landscape impact had been put forward by the applicant. Further information had subsequently been submitted and the Landscape Officer was content that, on balance, the proposals would have an acceptable impact on the landscape, subject to appropriate mitigation. It was noted that the ponds would only hold water during extreme flood events and the rest of the time would be difficult to identify in the landscape. On balance, whilst it was acknowledged that the proposed flood storage area would have an impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, it was considered that the benefits in terms of flood alleviation would outweigh the harm to the landscape.
87.46 A Member drew attention to Page No. 927, Paragraph 6.2, of the Officer report which recommended that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to no objection being raised by the Council’s Flood Risk Management Engineer. The Planning Officer clarified that this had been addressed in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, which confirmed that no objection had been raised on drainage grounds. Two additional conditions had been requested by the Landscape Officer in order to ensure the protection of onsite trees during construction.
87.47 A Member felt that there were a number of questions which needed to be answered before a decision could be made including which other sites had been considered; whether there were other areas which flooded - both in 2007 and 2014 - where the money could be better spent; and what was proposed in terms of the future maintenance of the attenuation features and access onto the land. Another Member indicated that she had sympathy with the residents of Oakley and Noverton, and had seen how they had been affected by the flooding in 2007; however, there had been considerable house building in the area since that time and she questioned what flood attenuation measures had been installed as part of that and whether those could be upgraded. A Member agreed with the points which had been raised and also felt that a more accurate landscape assessment was needed. He sought assurance that this scheme was the top priority for the county and asked for confirmation of the flood zone in which the site was located. He also felt that further information was needed as to how the landowner’s businesses would be affected and whether he would be compensated, particularly as the County Council did not intend to issue a Compulsory Purchase Order for the land. On this basis, it was proposed and seconded that the application be deferred in order to obtain further information: on the selection process, including details of other sites and why they were rejected; to confirm that the scheme was the top priority for the county; to justify why the storage areas were needed; on the proposed landscape mitigation required; to clarify which flood zone the site fell within; to establish how the attenuation measures would be maintained in the long term and who would be responsible; to clarify the means of construction access; to identify what flood alleviation measures had been used for the new residential development at Oakley and Noverton and why they could not be upgraded to provide sufficient flood alleviation; and to establish what mechanisms would compensate the landowner for inconvenience or impact upon his businesses given that the works would be carried out under the Land Drainage Act powers and not through a Compulsory Purchase Order. The Chair indicated that he would take the proposal for a deferral first and, upon being put to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That the application be DEFERRED in order to obtain further information: on the selection process, including details of other sites and why they were rejected; to confirm that the scheme was the top priority for the county; to justify why the storage areas were needed; on the proposed landscape mitigation required; to clarify which flood zone the site fell within; to establish how the attenuation measures would be maintained in the long term and who would be responsible; to clarify the means of construction access; to identify what flood alleviation measures had been used for the new residential development at Oakley and Noverton and why they could not be upgraded to provide sufficient flood alleviation; and to establish what mechanisms would compensate the landowner for inconvenience or impact upon his businesses given that the works would be carried out under the Land Drainage Act powers and not through a Compulsory Purchase Order.
15/00898/OUT – Part Parcel 2691, Tewkesbury Road, Twigworth
87.48 This was an outline application for the erection of up to 10 dwellings, with all matters to be reserved for future consideration.
87.49 The Planning Officer explained that the Committee had previously delegated authority to the Development Manager to permit an application for 10 dwellings on the site subject of the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure affordable housing, education and public open space. These details were never finalised and the decision had never been issued. Since that time there had been significant changes in material circumstances which justified reconsideration of the application by the Committee. Firstly, there had been a change in government policy meaning that affordable housing contributions could no longer be justified for developments of less than 11 dwellings with a floorspace of no more than 1,000sqm. In addition, the Council was now able to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites; however, this was a rolling requirement based on the need to maintain that supply. Furthermore, Twigworth was now considered as a very sustainable settlement given its inclusion in the Joint Core Strategy as a strategic allocation. Taking into account all of these factors, the proposals were considered to represent sustainable development in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework and it was recommended that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure any community contributions, including education and off-site public open space, and any necessary alterations to conditions.
87.50 The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item. The Officer recommendation was for authority to be delegated to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure any community contributions, including education and off-site public open space, and any necessary alterations to conditions, and he sought a motion from the floor. It was proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to permit the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being taken to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure any community contributions, including education and off-site public open space, and any necessary alterations to conditions.
16/00191/FUL – Walnut Farm, Tewkesbury Road, Norton
87.51 This application was for redevelopment to include four dwellings and associated works.
87.52 The Chair invited the applicant’s agent, Becky Brown to address the Committee. She advised that this was an application to redevelop the site with four dwellings in a farmstead courtyard style utilising the existing access onto the A38. The dwellings would replace a number of former agricultural buildings, which were in a state of disrepair, as well as a timber-clad dwelling. Pre-application discussions with Planning Officers had taken place at the end of 2015, culminating in the submission of an outline application in February 2016. A detailed layout and indicative elevations had been submitted to demonstrate how the site could be satisfactorily developed. They had then been directed by Officers to submit what had become a detailed planning application. As such, a significant amount of information had been submitted to support the proposal including reports on ecology, noise and transport. Discussions with Officers had continued over the past 14 months and all of the issues raised by consultees during the application process had been fully addressed. There had been no objections from local residents of Norton and the Parish Council was supportive of the scheme. She was pleased that Officers were able to lend their support to the scheme and she asked Members to follow that advice and grant permission for this small, carefully designed development to provide four additional dwellings in the service village of Norton.
87.53 The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure an affordable housing contribution, and he sought a motion from the floor. It was proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure an affordable housing contribution. A Member questioned why an affordable housing contribution was required given that the proposal was for four dwellings. In response, the Planning Officer explained that the four dwellings would have an internal floorspace of 1,193sqm which was in excess of 1,000sqm and therefore not excluded from affordable housing contributions. In response to a query, clarification was provided that this would be an off-site contribution. A Member noted that the Committee would normally be provided with plans of the proposed dwellings, however, only the site plan and streetscene plans had been included. The Planning Officer provided assurance that detailed floorplans and elevations had been submitted with the application but they had not been attached to the Officer report in this instance.
87.54 Upon being taken to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure an affordable housing contribution.
16/00853/FUL – Land to the East of Tewkesbury Road and North of Longford Lane, Longford
87.55 This was an application for the erection of 197 dwellings with associated works.
87.56 The Planning Officer explained that outline planning permission had been granted on the site in July 2008 following a public inquiry for residential development comprising up to 570 dwellings, community uses, a local centre comprising a mix of retail uses and associated physical infrastructure and open space. The development had also been subject to Section 106 Agreements to secure affordable housing, public open space, community education and library provision. Since that time, a number of reserved matters applications had been submitted and two phases of the development had been approved. A further application had been granted in 2013 to extend the time for the outline permission. Condition 2 attached to the outline consent stated that applications for the approval of reserved matters should be made no later than three years from the date of the permission; the decision notice was dated May 2013, therefore the expiry for the submission of reserved matters was 17 May 2016 and the current application could not be considered under the previous outline permission. As such, this was the detailed application for the final phase of the site and it would meet the Section 106 requirements for the whole site, either through a new Section 106 Agreement, or via a Deed of Variation. The application site was included as a housing commitment in the main modifications version of the Joint Core Strategy and was proposed to be removed from the Green Belt. As a commitment, the site contributed to the current five year housing supply in the short term. The majority of the external infrastructure and highways were already in place and Members should have regard to the fact that this formed an integral part of the wider site which had already been granted planning permission; there would be a significant impact on the whole site if this application was refused in terms of the package of developer contributions required, the delivery of infrastructure and affordable housing and the impact on the supply of housing in the short-term. Since the publication of the Officer report, County Highways had confirmed that it had no objection to the proposals, subject to a number of conditions which were set out in the Additional Representation Sheet, attached at Appendix 1. In addition, the Environment Agency had assessed the updated information that had been submitted in relation to the outfalls but still required technical drawings to be submitted. Natural England had raised no objection to the original application; however, due to the reduction in the number of dwellings proposed, it had been reconsulted as a matter of course and had requested that a Habitats Regulation Assessment be undertaken. This information had been provided by the developer and was currently being considered. On that basis, it was recommended that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to permit the application in order to amend conditions to address the highway matters and any further requirements of the Environment Agency and Natural England.
87.57 The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item. The Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to amended conditions to address the highway matters, and any further requirements of the Environment Agency and Natural England; to refer the application to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; and to complete a Section 106 or Deed of Variation Section 106 obligation to ensure all requirements of the previous Section 106 Agreement were met, and he sought a motion from the floor. It was proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to permit the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation.
87.58 A Member queried what the total amount of houses on the site would be should this application be permitted. The Planning Officer advised that Phase 1 comprised 291 dwellings, Phase 2 comprised 107 dwellings and this application was for 197 bringing the total number of dwellings to 595. This exceeded the number of dwellings permitted in the original outline permission by 25; however, this was a full planning application which was not tied to the original permission and Officers considered that the additional dwellings, and their proposed design and layout, could be accommodated on the site. It was noted that this application had originally been for 215 houses so there had been a reduction and the additional 25 houses would be beneficial in terms of uplift to the five year housing supply. A Member pointed out that, if Members permitted this application, they would be agreeing to permit development in the Green Belt. In response, the Planning Officer confirmed that the outline planning permission granted in 2008 covered the whole site, including the application site. The wider site was already being built and was dependent on this phase of the development in order to ensure compliance with the masterplan which required 30% affordable housing across the site. The application could not, therefore, be described as premature as it was a committed site which counted towards the housing numbers in the Joint Core Strategy. Furthermore, the application would be referred to the Secretary of State who would ultimately decide whether the proposal was acceptable. It was considered that the Officer recommendation was appropriate given that it was a commitment in the Joint Core Strategy and a refusal would undermine the completion of the wider site which had been permitted and developed.
87.59 A Member sought clarification regarding the access and attention was drawn to the plan at Page No. 969/H of the Officer report which showed the access which was already in place to serve the wider development. This went onto Longford Lane and an assessment had been carried out previously for the whole site to ensure that was up to standard and could accommodate the additional traffic. Another Member drew attention to Page No. 963, Paragraph 13.6 of the Officer report, where the Environment Agency had pointed out that the finished floor levels did not concur with current guidance on climate change and she questioned whether this was addressed in the recommendation conditions. The Planning Officer explained that a technical update was awaited from the Environment Agency and a condition would need to be included once a formal response was received. The Member felt that it would have been helpful for a plan to be included showing parking and access to dwellings as there was no indication that had been taken into account. A Member went on to raise concern about bin storage which could often spoil the appearance of new estates and he questioned whether this could be addressed by condition. The Planning Officer advised that a condition to prevent refuse bins being placed at the front of properties would be unreasonable and unenforceable. If this was something Members felt strongly about then it could be given further consideration as part of the delegated maters. Other developments with long estate roads often included muster points for bin collection and this was something which could be discussed with Ubico and County Highways, with possibly an additional appropriately worded condition delegated. A Member found it concerning that this had not been resolved at an earlier stage of the application process. Another Member shared this concern and, whilst he recognised the implications of not permitting the application, he felt that there was a lot of information missing. He was particularly unhappy about the amount of uplift, given that the original scheme was for 570 dwellings and the fact that this had been increased without any reference to the Committee was unfortunate in his view.
87.60 Upon being put to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to PERMIT the application subject to amended conditions to address the highway matters, and any further requirements of the Environment Agency and Natural England; for further discussions with County Highways and Ubico regarding bin collection; to refer the application to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; and to complete a Section 106 or Deed of Variation Section 106 obligation to ensure all requirements of the previous Section 106 Agreement were met.
16/01172/FUL – Part Parcel 3100, Wainlode Lane, Norton
87.61 This application was for the erection of 22 dwellings. The application was deferred at the last meeting of the Committee in order to obtain further information from Severn Trent Water regarding the sewage disposal and for further clarification from the Strategic Housing and Enabling Officer as to how the housing figures had been produced.
87.62 The Chair invited Councillor David Rolls, representing Norton Parish Council, to address the Committee. He indicated that he would not repeat the arguments he had made at the last meeting, however, he felt that Planning Officers had attempted to brush aside some of those arguments in their latest comments and he wished to set the record straight. In Paragraph 5.2 of the Officer report, the Strategic Housing and Enabling Officer had pointed out that only 15 households had responded and this had been used as a reason to include responses from a survey three years earlier. The survey instructions had clearly stated that it should only be completed if someone in the household planned to move within the next five years and therefore it was no surprise that the response rate was low. It was nonsense to add together two sequential surveys and thereby grossly overestimate the housing need. From Paragraph 5.3 of the Officer report, it was clear that no attempt had been made to evaluate the sites put forward by the parishioners, specifically to meet the actual housing need. If an exception site was to be considered, the Council must consult fully and this had not occurred. Officers had failed entirely to address the argument that the borough now had a housing land supply equivalent to over five years, so this development was not required to meet such obligations. Furthermore, agreement had already been reached to discount normal contributions by over £33,000 despite the extreme overcapacity of the local primary school, apparently because the development would not be viable, and he questioned what other corners would be cut if the commercial case for the development was so fragile. In summary, the Parish Council felt that the housing need was overstated and remained flawed; alternative sites had not been properly considered in relation to actual need; no serious consultation had taken place with the Parish Council; and development contributions had already been discussed and apparently waived in agreement with the developer, yet the school capacity problems remained. On behalf of all parishioners, the Parish Council urged Members to refuse permission for the development.
87.63 The Chair invited Tim Basnett, a local resident speaking in objection to the application, to address the Committee. Mr Basnett explained that he spoke on behalf of the majority of the residents of Cook Lane who wanted to make Members aware of the ongoing problems experienced with the pumping station and how connecting additional houses to it would increase the number of incidents where foul water backed up into their homes. That included foul water appearing in sinks, being unable to flush toilets and, on one occasion, having excrement in the garden. At the end of the last meeting, it had been suggested that surface water for Cook Lane was channelled into the Cook Lane pumping station. This was not the case; surface water from Cook Lane was channelled into on-site balancing ponds in accordance with the terms of the planning consent for the development. The problems with Cook Lane pumping station were down to its capacity and also that of the village pumping station into which it drained. It was also stated that the proposed new development would only be sending foul water to Cook Lane pumping station and therefore would not cause problems; however, if the pumping station was full and backing up foul water into their houses, surely extra waste would exacerbate the situation. This would affect either the Cook Lane properties and/or the proposed development, depending on the relative height of the two areas. The civil engineer for Central and Country Developments which planned and installed the Cook Lane pumping station had said it had capacity for two days’ worth of foul water for the 14 houses on the development, in fact, it frequently reached that capacity far sooner when heavy rainfall had overloaded the main system, thus preventing the pumping station from draining. Since the last Planning Committee meeting, Severn Trent had been twice to the Cook Lane and main village pumping stations to drain them. Acknowledging the limitations of the capacity of the main village pumping station, Severn Trent imposed a restriction on the developer recommended pump from 1.5 litres per second to 0.6 litres per second with the corresponding reduction in rising main pipe size. Severn Trent also incorrectly believed the Cook Lane pumping station was connected to the high pressure main on Wainlode Lane – it was actually on a separate, smaller pipe which did not have the capacity for large flows. This did not appear to be on Severn Trent’s plans as the developer of the four new houses on Wainlode Lane had discovered after Severn Trent had informed him otherwise. Severn Trent had admitted that the Cook Lane pumping station was unsuitable – in a letter to the developer of the four houses, the Asset Protection Officer from Severn Trent had stated that he was concerned about the cumulative effect of 22 additional properties on this small pumping station. Residents had explained to the developer at a public meeting in September 2016 that the pumping station did not have capacity, and they experienced frequent problems with foul water backing up into houses, but they were ignored. They had also tried to have meeting with Severn Trent and had invited the Design Manager to come to the site to discuss the issue. He had been sent the evidence from Central and Country Developments showing the Severn Trent restrictions but he had ignored the emails and calls. On the single occasion he had replied, he had quoted the Water Industry Act, stating that Severn Trent could not prevent someone connecting to its network. These problems stretched back for six years and this could be supported by call logs to Severn Trent - on one occasion a call-out was required on Christmas morning with residents making contingency plans for lunch. He did not wish his speech to sound like a rant at Severn Trent but it had stated to Planning Officers that the pumping station had capacity which was manifestly untrue. He urged Members to reject the application on the basis of inefficient and unsuitable infrastructure and the significant impact it would have on local residents.
87.64 The Strategic Housing and Enabling Officer advised that the housing needs survey was taken at the end of 2016 and was an update to the 2013 survey. It was carried out by Gloucestershire Rural Community Council and it was stated that the two should be read in conjunction with one another. No affordable housing had been built in the village since the original survey so it could only be assumed that the 2013 identified need had not been met. In terms of the evaluation of sites, the Neighbourhood Development Plan group had been the main port of call and had met with a representative from Gloucestershire Rural Community Council to identify sites which would be of sufficient capacity. The Parish Council had been asked if it wished to work together to meet the Neighbourhood Development Plan affordable housing need but it had not felt that it wanted to do that. The sites within the Neighbourhood Development Plan were not sufficient to contribute toward affordable housing requirements; whilst she tried to achieve as much on-site provision as possible, when it came to formal assessment, the sites did not trigger affordable housing need. In terms of delivery for Norton, the best site possible had been determined and the applicant had worked up a site which enabled rented and shared ownership properties as well as starter homes which would meet the affordable housing need. A Member noted that, in an earlier application on the schedule for four houses at Walnut Farm, the applicant was paying a contribution to off-site affordable housing and she questioned why none was required on that application site if there was such a great need in the area. In response, the Strategic Housing and Enabling Officer explained that it was not possible to require 40% on-site affordable housing provision for a scheme with just four dwellings – also, if on-site this would effectively mean that one of the four houses would be affordable and would be significantly smaller in size by nature which would not result in the type of development that was desired. A financial contribution was acceptable in policy terms in such circumstances.
87.65 The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement, and he sought a motion from the floor. It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused on the basis that it was premature; it did not advantage the work that had been carried out on the Neighbourhood Development Plan; the site was not included in the original Strategic Housing Land Allocation Assessment; due to the problems identified by the local residents in terms of drainage and connectivity; and it would be intrusive in the landscape. The Planning Officer indicated that landscape harm was an acceptable reason for refusal; however, he had concerns about the prematurity argument given that Norton was a service village and that the Neighbourhood Development Plan was at a relatively early stage therefore could not be given significant weight. The proposer of the motion indicated that, whilst 22 dwellings may not seem like a particularly large amount, it was significant for the village of Norton. Another Member expressed the view that he was uncomfortable with the identified housing need which he felt that the Officer recommendation was reliant upon. The Planning Officer explained that, whilst Policy HOU4 was applicable as the Council was now able to demonstrate a five year housing supply, this was a rolling requirement and Norton was a service village so there was an expectation that it would take a certain amount of housing. Another Member understood that there was a requirement for the Council to deliver a certain amount of affordable housing annually, in addition, he queried whether there was a directive that, even with the Joint Core Strategy, housing applications still had to be judged on the three criteria within the National Planning Policy Framework. The Planning Officer advised that the National Planning Policy Framework talked about three strands of sustainability and that assessment had been undertaken in the identification of Norton as a service village. HOU4 was a policy obligation and Officers had to make an assessment in terms of whether the development was sustainable. In this case, despite the conflict with Policy HOU4, it was considered to be acceptable. The Strategic Housing and Enabling Officer confirmed that there was a concern that the Council would not be able to meet its targets in terms of delivering both market and affordable housing over the coming years and even smaller sites would continue to contribute towards that.
87.66 A Member indicated that she continued to be concerned about the fact that residents were currently having issues relating to sewage and the capacity assessment did not give her confidence that the issue was being resolved. There was no requirement to improve the sewage works in Norton and the additional houses would only exacerbate the existing problem. A Member expressed the view that flooding must be dealt with properly, and he felt that had been the case so far. He respected the proposal that had been made but he considered that the application was in accordance with the Joint Core Strategy, housing was needed and he could not support a refusal. Another Member indicated that he would like to support the proposal but did not think he could; the Committee had already resolved to grant planning permission for 197 houses in Longford, in a Green Belt location, and four dwellings at Walnut Farm. He appreciated that each application was to be considered on its own merits but consistency was needed as well. The Development Services Manager explained that Members had an application before them that needed to be determined on the basis of the evidence provided in the Officer report and the representations they had heard at Committee. This decision must be taken in the context of the planning framework, the emerging Joint Core Strategy and the emerging borough plan.
87.67 Upon being put to the vote, there was an equal number of votes for and against and therefore the Chair exercised his casting vote and the motion to refuse the application was lost. It was subsequently proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to permit the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being taken to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement, in accordance with the Officer recommendation.
Supporting documents:
PDF 11 MB